Talk:Christianity and anti-Semitism/Archive 4

Moved to talk extremist statements.

Theologian Andrew Wilson writes:

Ask most Jews what they honestly think about Jesus, and you will find a deep bitterness. Jesus was the starting-point for the painful history of Christian anti-Semitism. Centuries of Christian violence against Jews: mob violence, pillaging, rape, confinement to ghettos, forcible abduction of children to be baptized as Christians, expulsions from many nations and finally the Holocaust, have poisoned the minds of Jews from being able to appreciate the goodness of Jesus Christ. Christian anti-Semitism, and the resulting Jewish resentment of Christianity, remains a spiritual weight, the congealed pain of tens of millions of people who lived and died through that persecution. It is a continuing factor in hindering the Jewish-Christian relationship. [1] (http://www.familyfed.org/board/uboard.asp?id=ffwpu_news&skin=board_urim_simple&color=eng&page=1&u_no=205)

Cautious 16:47, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

RK wrote: Your previous statement took away things which had made Christian anti-Semitism look bad, and said that to obtain "balance" we should ask for bigoted statements from Jews to add.

I reply: Please look again. I put "balance" in quote marks to indicate that it was NOT my belief. Yes, I should have been more explicit to avoid misunderstandings and I apologise to anyone who was unnecessarily offended. -- zero 03:02, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I too am sorry, Zero0000; I should have read your words more charitably. I was just pissed because I have been dealing with a lot of new contributions on Wikipedia, containing some truly terrible stuff. (i.e. moral equivalency between any actions of the USA, and the World Trade Center bombing, and long-winded apologetics for Yemenite Arabs to murder Americans. Heck, people even suggested ratios of how many Americans could be murdered, and still be considered fair and ethical.) Many of the comments which I have been fighting off were a form of moral equivalency presented as "balance". So when I read your words, it (at the time) seemed to be in the same boat. Now I know better. I apologize for being quite wrong about you. RK 03:18, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Accepted. As for the article I don't feel qualified to write it except maybe for the part around WWII and that would take a lot of work (Holocaust scholarship is my second reading interest after ME history but it's an enormous subject). I hope other people will step in to fix various parts (for example Mkmcconn, whose discussion of pluralism statements above is spot on). Mkmcconn, go for it. -- zero 10:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I removed statements about Billy Graham and Pat Robertson not evangelizing Jews because I can't find any support for it, except some extremist Christian websites who use the allegation as ammunition to acccuse Graham of heresy, and because it would appear to contradict what Graham says elsewhere about the uniqueness of Christianity. I did find testimonies on the Graham website from Jews who had accepted Jesus. DJ Clayworth 15:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Could someone please explain to me why Falwell's statements are considered anti-semitic? It looks to me as though all he did was to say that there is one person in the future who will be both evil and Jewish. I don't see how this is discriminatory, any more than saying "Hitler was evil" is discrimination against the German people? DJ Clayworth 15:08, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitic" is a strong word, and although I personally believe that a good deal of Christian theology is -- or at the very least for a very long time was -- anti-Semitic, I'd hesitate to throw the word around casually. But I believe that the aticle said that the statement was a cause for concern among Jews, and aside from the fact that this is simply an assertion of fact, and an accurate one, I don't think it takes much explaining. For one thing, the analogy with Hitler is false because Hitler lived and died, while Falwell is talking about the future. It is an established fact that Hitler was Austrian and moved to Germany, this is a fact in a way that any claim about some future anti-Christ is not a fact. Moreover, part of Hitler's evil was his racism -- his explicit polemic that the "Aryan" race is superior, which was in fact used to justify killing millions of Jews as well as others. In other words, Hitler himself made race the issue. Of course this does not mean that all Germans or Austrians are evil -- but I do think what Hitler wrote and did, with massive popular support, casts a dark shadow indeed on a certain form of German nationalism, and all those who adhere to that nationalism. In any event, for Hitler, at least, his being German was a big part of how he explained his beliefs and acts, and was a big part of why certain people supported him. Now, I am sure that there have been other bad, perhaps even evil, people in the past who happened to be German, but the fact that they were German was utterly irrelevant to their evil (the movie "M" is a great exploration of such a case). Likewise, I am sure that there have been bad, even evil people who happen to have been Jewish. The quesion is, is there any connection between their being Jewish and their being evil? In most cases, I doubt it, although I am sure one could find some examples. But my point is that one's race or religion need not have anything to do with one's character or actions, and in these cases race or religion is irrelevant. BUT the whole point of Falwell's statement is to say that race/religion IS relevant. He is saying that (presumably) the most evil person who will ever have lived will be Jewish. Why? And why does he say it, if race/religion doesn't matter? This is the worst form of profiling as a form of racism that casts a shadow over all Jews. Italians, French, Japanese, Indians -- they are all immune from this shadow, simply because they are not Jewish. But because Falwell thinks that the anti-christ will be Jewish, he is implying that the only possible suspects will be Jews, which implies that all Jews are suspect. If you do not understand how deeply this can offend a Jew, I am sorry that you lack that capacity for understanding. But I hope that you have the decency, at least, to take seriously Jews' feelings of having been injured. At least, I hope that is what motivated your question. Slrubenstein

Sl. First an apology. I should not have used Hitler as an example here - I'm afraid I only wanted a clear example of a bad person, intending to show that their badness didn't necessarily reflect on their race. It was of course stupid of me to choose the example I did. I apologise entirely.

Having examined the article and some more of Falwell's statements I'm still not convinced that they were intended to be anti-semitic. Isn't it possible that Falwell is simply trying to give a picture of the person he is talking about, for identification, rather like a policeman who includes a suspect's race in the description, without intending to imply that all people of that race should be suspects? DJ Clayworth 14:24, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't have a clue about the "theology" behind Falwell's statement, but just on the face of it one can interpret his statement as "Christ was a Jew, the anti-christ will be a 'counterfeit of Christ', therefore the anti-christ will be a Jew too". I'd want to see more of what Falwell believes about Jews in general before labeling it as more than normal religious clap-trap. --zero 14:51, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't really care about Falwell's theology, but I am a little curious if he thinks the Anti-Christ will be the son of a carpenter (or a carpenter) too. I agree that it would be worth knowing more about Falwell's beliefs and personal intentions, but only to a point, because I think that much racism is unconscious; I think people often do or say things that are unintentionally racist, because of how they were brought up. So personally, for me a test of whether someone is racist or anti-Semitic is always, how they respond when someone suggests that what they did or said was racist of anti-Semitic. If they get angry or defensive, to me that is strong evidence that they are racist; if they apologize and reflect on what they said or did, I am happy to reconsider my first reaction. Still, I continue to be suspicious of Falwell and here is why: the logic of his argument is patently false. If the anti-Christ must be a counterfeit Christ, meaning that if Jesus were Jewish the anti-Christ must be Jewish, one could also -- I mean, just using the same logic -- argue that the anti-Christ must be a subject of the Roman Empire (I doubt JF would make that claim). As to DJ Clayworth's apology, of course I accept it and appreciate it, but I must say, it is unnecessary. I found it only very mildly offensive and was certain it was unintentional, but my main reason for making an issue of it was not because I was offended but because I believed it was unconstructive and only further illustrated the problem with making analogies, which, to be generous, is one of Falwell's problems. Slrubenstein

I have the hardest time seeing your logic here, and think that it's rather simple to follow Falwell's thinking. The prophecies, as Falwell understands them, predict that the Christ would be a Jew, and Falwell is drawing his analogy on that basis alone. He predicts that the Antichrist will be like Christ in all ways, except falsely appearing to be righteous (just as Christ falsely appeared to be unrighteous): thus, a Jew, who performs miracles, even seeming to have been raised from the dead. What would it mean if these prophecies say nothing about the Christ being subject to the Roman Empire? I imagine he thinks there is no relevance here at all for predicting who the Antichrist will be, because he holds this view based upon what the Scriptures say (as he understands them). Mkmcconn 21:38, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Slr asks whether Falwell might think the anti-christ will be a carpenter. The first answer is "maybe" because there is no limit to how ridiculous this stuff can get. The second answer is that the question assumes there is some sort of logical reasoning going on but that is asking too much of someone like Falwell. The third answer is that probably Falwell didn't make it up by himself and is just quoting a traditional belief. Slr also suggests that getting angry when accused of anti-semitism is evidence of guilt. I would have thought that a person accused of a grave offence has the right to be angry. I would also think that when such an accusation is made in error it is the accuser who has the greatest obligation to apologise. --zero 08:51, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear -- I think you in part misunderstand me, and in part I agree with you and should be more specific. I think it depends on what one is being accused of. If you accuse me of having killed someone, well, killing is an objective act (although we might question whether it was accidental or in self-defense). You either did or did not kill someone, and if you know that you did not kill someone, of course you have a right to be angry. But racism is a different sort of offence than murder -- it may take many forms, and in some cases it has taken the form of murder, but in many cases it takes other forms, many of which involve offending or insulting someone else. Here we come to my point: you cannot know whether or not you have offended someone in the same way that you can know whether or not you have killed someone. Whether or not you have offended someone depends as much on the other person as on you. I understand that some people are unfairly or hypersensitive, and perhaps we can agree that someone can reasonably or unreasonably take offense at something. Whenever someone feels offended, I think that before they react (or, as soon as possible after the initial reaction), they ought to reflect: were they being hypersensitive, or did they really have good cause to take offense. If upon reflect, the "victim" concludes that s/he was over-reacting, s/he owes someone an apology. Similarly, if I accuse you of having offended me, I believe that you have an obligation to reflect on why I might have been so offended (and this reflection might involve an invitation to dialogue, which is what I was hoping DJ Clayworth was doing). If after serious reflection and dialogue you understand why what you said was offensive, you should apologize and try to avoid so offending someone again. Of course, if you really believe your remark was fully justified and the other person's sense of injury unjustified, go ahead and be angry and defensive. I have already said that in some, maybe even many, cases, the other person's sense of injurty could be unjustified so this would be a fair response. Nevertheless, it should be obvious that someone who is deeply, even if subtly, racist, will find it very hard to understand why someone different from them would take offense, and would resist genuine reflection and dialogue and instead retreat into anger and defensiveness. This was my point. And whatever the "logic," to suggest that any Jew can be a suspect of being the epitomy of evil incarnate, although all non-Jews are immune from this suspicion, is racist and offensive. Slrubenstein

The last point simply does not follow. Christians believe that the salvation of the world is through the Jews, but this is not a pro-Jewish statement: it concerns belief in the word of God. A person with this belief may, nevertheless, be an antisemite (after all, that's what this article is about). Some Christians also believe that a deceiver of the whole earth will come from the Jews. A person may certainly believe this without being a racist, and many racists may believe it, just as both kinds of people believe that God chose the Jews for the salvation of the world. I can understand why you are offended; but it weakens the seriousness of the accusation of "racism" to abuse its definition this way. Mkmcconn 16:52, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, there is no point in arguing over this. But now, I really am curious about something. I understand that according to the Hebrew Bible the moshiah, meaning the king of the Jews, must be from the line of David. But that does not mean that the "son of God" or the "savior" must come from the line of David, or from the tribe of Judah, or from the Children of Israel. My understanding of Christianity is that it is catholic (small c, in the sense of "universal); surely in Christian belief the Christ is not the "King" or even the "savior" of "the Jews" but of all people. Am I wrong? So here is my confusion: why do Christians believe that "the salvation of the world is through the Jews" and that the "savior" must be Jewish? Yes, I understand that our next king (if we ever get one) should be descended from David and be Jewish. But why should the savior or lord over all people be Jewish? Jews certainly do not believe that God is Jewish (indeed, there is a text in Genesis that suggests God doesn't keep kosher)? Slrubenstein

The shortest answer is, it is simply what the Scriptures say, in so many words (Jn 4:22). But this is just a summation of what is understood from the earlier Scriptures, that the whole creation has been awaiting the appearing of a "seed" (Gen 3:15); and, this seed of Abraham (Gen 12:7;13:15,16;15:5,13,18;17:7-10;22:17-18), a circumcised (Gen 17:12) descendant of Sarah (Gen 17:19), and of Isaac (21:12; 22:17,18), would be a descendant of Jacob (Gen 28:12-14). The blessing of God on all the families of the earth, is through the "seed" of Abraham, by the line of Isaac, and of Jacob: a Jew and descendant of David (Jeremiah 23:5-6). Mkmcconn 18:35, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Gen 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 22:17-18 are specifically about the inheritance of the land of Canaan -- quite parochial, certainly not universal. 13:16 and 15:5 simply means there will be a lot of Jews in the future. 17:19 specifies that the heirs shall be through Sarah -- but again, all this is saying is that those people to whom God is giving a specific portion of land shall be descendants of Sarah, and 21:12 further specifies a descendant of Isaac, 28: 13-15 further specifies descendants of Jacob; there is nothing about being a savior. 15:13 "predicts" the future enslavement by Egyptians. 17:7-10 is about the enduring covenant between God and the Children of Israel -- it is specific to the biological descendants of Abraham (though Jews accept converts to the covenant; 17:12 provides something of a precedent); does not in any way exclude other covenants between God and other nations; is in any case parochial and not universal; and has nothing to do with a savior, let alone a savior of the world.

Gen. 22:18 comes closer to your point, but obviously can be argued different ways. That other nations shall find us Jews a blessing is nice, but does not mean that we (let alone one specific Jew) will be a "savior."

Jer. 23: 5-6 simply promise that the Jews will have another king, who will be a descendant of David.

None of the above have anything to do with a "savior of humankind." They deal with God?s promise that Abraham's descendants will be many (I am guessing he made the same promise to the Chinese and Indians, and was perhaps a little more serious about it with them); that his descendants through Jacob (the son of Sarah's son Isaac) will inherit the land; and that a descendant of David will be king over that land. All of this seems very very parochial to me, and I don't see how it requires that the savior of all humankind be a Jew, let alone king of Israel. So sorry, but I am still confused. Slrubenstein

Christians are not in doubt concerning how the promises have been fulfilled in Christ, as you are. And so, a Christian interpretation of these promises is in that light. The local and particular promises to one man and family ("the land", for example) are also implicated within a universal promise ("all the families of the earth"). And thus their fulfillment implies a universal scope (an everlasting kingdom over all the inhabitants of the earth, not limited to "the land"). So, you are right, you would not understand any of these passages in the Christian way, if they are taken in isolation from the universal scope implied by their connection to other promises. We would run into the same problem if we went from the other direction, and looked at passages concerning the kingdom of God which are clearly universal in scope, and you might raise questions about what these have to do with promises made to Abraham. Again, the New Testament is based upon the identification of Christ with these promises, and not as though there is doubt. Nothing is more interesting to me to discuss (I'm not, like so many here, interested in and knowledgeable about practically everything!), but I wonder if this page might be an improper place to do it? Mkmcconn 22:20, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I admit that this has become a tangent -- though one that I was curious about and I appreciate your efforts to explain. I DO think this material -- the issue itself -- is relevant to the article Comparing and contrasting Judaism or Christianity (or something like that) -- maybe you want to go over it and see if any of this fits in. Slrubenstein

I am always interested and challenged by you. Reading back over this, I see that I haven't really answered the question very well. I'll put some work in it and see if I can find a more appropriate place to post it for your attention. Mkmcconn

Anyone who argues with SLR will definitely end up learning something important. The man is a treasure trove of knowledge and wisdom. (So why don't I listen to him more? Just stubborn, I guess, like my Jewish grandfather. ;-) --Uncle Ed 21:46, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yikes! This is way too much flattery, even if it comes from two people I really respect. I do hope, however, that this exchange reveals to others how differently Jews and Christians (and of course others) read the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. I do hope Mkmcconn or others do use this opportunity to help develop the article on comparing Judaism and Christianity! Slrubenstein

---

"By the time the Gospels came into their final form, they included points of view that, if said by Gentiles to Jews, would certainly be considered anti-Semitic by the Jews."

I removed this because I can find no examples. Remember that it has to be something condemnatory of all Jews. Just calling someone a hypocrite is not anti-semitism just because the target is a Jew, especially if the speaker is also a Jew.

It depends on the context. Certainly these passages have been used to inflame anti-Jewish and anti-Semetic attacks. That's the point. In any event, I clarified some of the discussion on Pharisees. Slrubenstein

Similarly, in the Church fathers section I find one of the examples has a bishop arguing that no action should be taken against Christians who burned a Jewish house because no action was taken against Jews who burned a Christian house. To me that sounds like simple fairness. I suggest the passage is removed. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You aren't seriously suggesting that two wrongs make a right, are you? In any event, the text does not say that these Church Fathers were themselves anti-Semetic, only that these pronouncements have been used to justify anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein

Two wrongs is irrelevant. My point is that the Church fathers quoted were actually arguing for equal treatment for Jews and Christians. I don't see how that can be construed as anti-semitic.

I find the expansion of the Pharisaic passage troubling. You seem determined to convince people that the New Testament writers intended to attack Jews, but your argument critically depends on the assumption that the New Testament books were not just written down post-AD70, but that the original sources they were taken from were from post-AD70. Many if not most scholars would say the the NT, especially the sayings of Jesus, derive from sources that are pre-AD70, which means that the Pharisaic passages should be taken for exactly what they are - one Jew criticising another Jew. Several of the NT writers were clearly Jews; Paul was a Pharisee. I don't see that you can make this into some kind of anti-semitic attack.

You have also omitted NT passages where the Jews are singled out as specially blessed, and to be treated well. (e.g. Romans 15:27).

If your point is the mistaken usage of these passages, then maybe we should research the use and how they came to be used wrongly.

DJ Clayworth 04:28, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is true that I added some new material, but much of what I did involved reorganization -- thus, some of your remarks address sentences I did not write. I am sorry that you think I am "determined to convince people that the New Testament writers intended to attack Jews." I am not. Indeed, I think we agree on the main points: that "the Pharisaic passages should be taken for exactly what they are - one Jew criticising another Jew" -- this point was made very clearly in my expansion, as well as the important point that many people have interpreted the passage differently. The article was clear that these passages have been used to justify anti-Semitism. This is a fact, and this assertion makes no claims one way or another about intentions. I did, however, also write about passages in the Gospels that were written after 70 CE. This is an uncontroversial claim supported by a good deal of scholarship (and it is a claim that in no way suggests that all ofthe Gospels were written after 70, or that Jesus didn't exist). First century Jewish-Christian relations were complex. As far as I am concerned Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew. Saul was born a Jew but when he changed his name to Paul he also left Judaism and promoted a break between Jews and Christians. Within the NT you thus find passages that recall the time when all Christians were Jews, as well as passages that legitimate the break between Christianity and Judaism. After the destruction of the Temple different groups competed with different visions of the role of God in the world. In this context Christians were no longer a group of Pharisees debating against other Pharisees, they constituted a new religion whose story of itself relied on a break with, and rejection of, the old one. Slrubenstein

Thanks for that note. I'm glad you agree about the Pharisaic attacks, and sorry if I misinterpreted, or attributed to you things in the article that weren't yours.

I think the article is definitely improving. As you say, Christian-Jewish relations are complex; I'd certainly like to see if we can examine them in more detail. It seems to me, for example, that for the first few hundered years the strife between Jews and Christians was far from one-sided; Jews were as anti-Christian as Christians were anti-Semite.

I do disagree with you on one thing. It seems to me from his writings that Paul also considered himself a Jew to the end of his life, and continued to believe in God's special relationship with the Jews. The Romans ch 11 v 1-13 is a good example of this. It seems to me he regarded the current dispute Judaism as something temporary rather than permanent. (Modern Christian leaders should probably be a little more zealous in making sure passages like this are better known, incidentally).

I'm a bit busy over the next few days, but I'm going to try to take another look at the article soon. DJ Clayworth 14:50, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am glad you think the article is improving, and appreciate your comments. I certainly agree with you that in the first centuries CE the conflicts between Christians and Jews was not one-sided. I am certain that Jewish authorities opposed at least some Christian teachings, and I believe I state this clearly in my most recent additions. Perhaps you think more needs to be added and I wouldn't object as long as any material is carefully contextualized. Specifically, I think it is important to delineate when and why Jewish authorities opposed or even "persecuted" Christians. From what I have read, I do not think Pharisees persecuted Jesus -- as some other contributer to the article put it (citing a Lutheran minister) it was more like a family squabble. But I do believe that the Pharisses opposed early Christians after Jesus' death. I think one reason they opposed Christians was that Christians claimed people did not have to follow Jewish law; I think a bigger reason was that Christian preached the immanent second coming of Christ. I try to make this clear in the article and have no objections to making it clearer. But let me know if you think I am wrong or incomplete.

I understand your disagreement, but I think I was unclear. You say "Paul also considered himself a Jew" but I never said otherwise (about what Paul himself thought); I do believe that when he stopped obeying Jewish law the Jewish community would have seen him as leaving Judaism. Maybe I am wrong, or maybe it doesn't matter. In any event, the article (which is what really counts) doesn't claim that Paul wasn't Jewish. What really matters, I think is that Paul claimed that non-Jews could be Christians, and that Christians do not have to obey Jewish law. Am I wrong? For most Jews, it was these two claims that really signified a break with Judaism and the beginning of problems with Christianity, more than anything Jesus preached.

I am also not sure what the significance is of his belief that the problems with Jewish leaders was temporary. I assume, and many scholars argue, that Paul like other early Christians believed that Jesus would return really soon, and of course if they believed he was the messiah his return would end all debates between Jews and Christians. Is there some other reason that he would think the disputes were only temporary?

In any event the disputes weren't temporary and have endured to this day. I think we have to distinguish clearly between the claim that Jesus, his disciples, Paul and other second generation Christians were anti-Semitic (I believe they were not); that later, non-Jewish early Christians were anti-Semitic (I believe many were, in part because Jews revolted against Rome, and in part because Jews rejected Jesus); and that later Christians were anti-Semitic and used the NT to justify their anti-Semitism (I think this was the case). In other words, we shouldn't over-generalize and we should be clear about chronology and other contextual factors. I also think we have to distinguish between two points of view: some people claim that the Gospels are literally true and an accurate record of the words and deeds of Jesus. Others believe that some of the words and deeds of Jesus recorded in the Gospels are most likely true, some are probably ture, and some are probably not true. The ones that are probably not true would have been written quite sometime after Jesus was crucified, and reflect the situation, beliefs, and attitudes of the authors -- Christians living under very different conditions than Jesus (e.g., after the Great Revolt was put down and the Temple destroyed; after the fall of the Saducees from power and the rise of the Pharisees; at a time when some Christians were non-Jews and Christians were having more success proselytizing non-Jews than Jews). I think the article must represent both points of view clearly. If we can agree on these, I don't anticipate any serious conflicts in working on the article. But if anything I just wrote doesnt make sense to, or bothers, you -- please let me know. Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein wrote above: What really matters, I think is that Paul claimed that non-Jews could be Christians, and that Christians do not have to obey Jewish law. Am I wrong? For most Jews, it was these two claims that really signified a break with Judaism and the beginning of problems with Christianity, more than anything Jesus preached.

I think that Paul believed that "Christianity" (a very new term at the time, may or may not have been used by Paul) was the fulfillment of the Hebrews' faith, not a departure from it. Yes, Paul did not believe it was still necessary for every male to be circumcised before joining the community of believers in God. He was moving away from Judaism as an ethnic identity and collection of cultural practices, and towards a religion founded on a relationship with God. "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor... There is is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:24-25, 28-29. Paul thought that the special relationship between God and the Jews was meant to be shared with all humanity, not confined to a single ethnic group forever, and he believed this based on the Old Testament. Yes, Paul may well have believed that the remaining debates would soon be settled by Christ's imminent return. He also may have been optimistic that many more Jews would believe in Jesus Christ. Despite his reputation as apostle to the Gentiles, he often visited the synagogue first when entering a city, preaching to Gentiles only after being turned out of the synagogue. And despite Paul's insistence that Moses' Law need not be strictly followed by all, I personally think that Jesus' claim to be the Son of God was a much more blasphemous assertion. Wesley 02:29, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree (or at least don't necessarily disagree) with what you wrote above. Paul seemed to consider that mainstream Judaism had, temporarily, gone down the wrong path, but retained a belief in their (i.e. his) special value to God as a race. Since we are talking about anti-semitism here, it seems to me enough to establish that Paul disagreed with current Judaism on theological grounds, and not on any racial grounds. Is that not enough to establish that he, and his writings, are not anti-semitic.

On a separate note the new version of the section discussing anti-semitism in the Gospels has a lot of slightly weaselly 'if the Gospels are to be believed' language. Christians clearly believed that Jesus was the Messiah very early on (and the persecution of the early church would seem to indicate that this was very, very soon after Jesus death, if not before). Can we trim this down a bit? The early church clearly made claims about Jesus which got them thrown of the Jewish community. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)